text:
The Clintons' Dominance of Democratic Politics Is Over—And They Will Not Be Remembered Fondly
Self-inflicted wounds, an out-of-touch candidate and a party more concerned about Wall Street than the working class sealed the Clinton campaign's defeat.
Kathleen Geier
In the aftermath of a political catastrophe as devastating of the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, you've got two choices. You can blame the elites or blame the people. I'm gonna go with the elites.
Many liberal journalists, however have taken the opposite view. To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht, in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton's stunning loss, they have demanded that we dissolve the people and elect another. The Clintonistas have attempted to pin the blame for this fiasco on the voter groups they detest the most: the white working class, the millennials, and the Left. Clinton supporter Jill Filipovic opined that Hillary was too good for us: "Sorry America, you didn't deserve her," she tweeted. Many other Clintonites in the media concurred. To Virginia Heffernan, Hillary Clinton was not just a candidate. Instead, she "is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself" who "did everything right in this campaign… She cannot be faulted, criticized, or analyzed for even one more second."
But outside the pro-Clinton media bubble, ordinary Americans had a far less rosy view of Dear Leader Hillary.
Clinton came within striking distance of winning this thing; that much is clear. Normally, when, like Hillary, you begin your campaign with approval ratings that are already under water, and you're also running when your own party has held the White House for two consecutive terms, I'd say it would be an uphill climb to victory. On the other hand, Hillary was running against Donald Trump, a man who, at the time of the election, was despised by even more people than she was. Against a normal Republican like McCain or Romney, Hillary probably would have lost decisively. But against Trump, she was the odds-on favorite. The polls were tight but they almost always showed Hillary in the lead. And it ended up being a close, and therefore winnable, election. The margins were close enough that a competently run campaign could and should have put Clinton over the top.
What we saw instead was gross political malpractice on the part of Democratic Party elites generally and Team Clinton specifically. Yes, factors outside of the campaign's control, ranging from the Comey letter to racism, sexism, and more, surely contributed to her defeat. But it's also become clear that a series of fatal miscalculations and spectacular strategic blunders by the party and the Clinton campaign is what ultimately sealed their candidate's fate.
Here are some of them:
1. This one isn't so much why-Hillary-lost but why-the-Democrats-lost: the Clintons did the most thorough job of clearing the Democratic primary field of any candidate in modern history. They threw their weight around and made certain that they had endorsements and support from just about every major donor, party official, party organization, and interest group organization (such as labor, reproductive rights groups, environmental groups, etc.).
The Clintons have a history of punishing perceived disloyalty, so it's easy to see why these groups knuckled under. Every potential candidate stayed out except Bernie, who shocked everyone when what was supposed to be a protest candidacy turned into a major threat. But if the primary process had been open and competitive, we almost certainly would have ended up with a stronger and more popular candidate. I don't know who that would have been – maybe Elizabeth Warren, maybe Joe Biden, maybe Sherrod Brown, maybe Kirsten Gillibrand, maybe someone else. In any case, the party, and the country, would have been far better off. Democratic Party elites share the blame here, because they never challenged the Clintons' attempts to ensure a coronation.
2. Clinton also shot herself in the foot by her own arrogant behavior. Setting up the private email server at the State Department, making those buckraking Wall Street speeches, refusing to cut her ties to the Clinton Foundation (and thus avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest) – all of those were Clinton's freely made choices, and as such they were completely avoidable.
Yes, the email scandal was a load of bunk, but why in the world would she make the stupid decision to set up a private server in the first place, which gratuitously provided endless rounds of ammunition for her many political enemies? She knew she'd be running for president again, and it's not like the right hasn't been hellbent on destroying her for, oh, the past quarter-century or so. It's worth pointing out that President Obama has had the discipline and smarts to avoid that kind of self-destructive behavior. He and his administration never gave off the faintest whiff of scandal, which is why his enemies were never able to bring him down, try as they might. Seriously, what was Clinton's excuse here?
Every one of those dangerous misjudgments was a self-inflicted wound that never stopped bleeding, and confirmed the well-founded perception that Clinton was entitled and out of touch. That Clinton never seemed to learn from her past was an ominous sign that her presidency would have been chockful of similar misadventures. After decades of Clinton drama, the public was weary, and no wonder.
3. Relatedly, when Hillary made these foolish decisions, why didn't the people around her stop her? And that points to another reason why she lost: the mediocrity of her advisers and campaign staff. The Clintons, who seem to prize loyalty over competence, have a long and troubling history of surrounding themselves with extraordinarily unsavory people – sleazeballs and hacks like Mark Penn, Lanny Davis, and Dick Morris, to name just a few. This time around, there weren't any members of Team Clinton who seemed quite that clownish, so I assumed the personnel decisions were wiser. From the outside, the campaign look professional and competent. But as we've been discovering, that perception belied the reality.
4. There is also abundant evidence that Clinton's campaign royally screwed up its strategy and badly misallocated resources. Clinton won the popular vote by over 2 million votes yet lost key Rust Belt states by razor-thin margins. Clinton's much-hyped, data-driven get-out-the-vote operation was a shocking failure. Working with outdated voter lists, it mistakenly targeted large numbers of Trump voters. In Michigan, state and local officials "were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004." In states like Ohio, Team Clinton's efforts neglected traditional Democratic constituencies like African-Americans in favor of targeting far less favorable demographics like upscale Republican women. Clinton did not appear in Wisconsin, a state that she lost, after the primary in April, and neither did Barack or Michelle Obama. One Clinton official admitted that the campaign didn't do more in some states where they knew were vulnerable because they were too busy playing mind games with Trump: they believed they "could keep Trump away — by acting overly confident about their chances." Heckuva job, Team Clinton!
5. Theda Skocpol has cited another factor in Clinton's loss: the Democrats' lack of organizational infrastructure in non-urban areas. The GOP has a strong organizational base in these regions, including get-out-the-vote efforts run by the Christian right, the NRA, the Koch organizations, and the Republican Party itself. But the Dems have let their own party organizations wither on the vine, and the unions which were once the Democrats' stronghold in the critical Rust Belt region have declined dramatically. When it comes to getting voters to the polls in rural areas, the Democrats are now at a tremendous structural disadvantage. To be sure, this a party-wide, rather than a Clinton-only, failure. But Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama bear strong responsibility here. Each them served for two terms but showed little interest in building the party.
6. Finally, perhaps most consequential of all was the campaign's failure to advance a strong economic message. Team Clinton's central strategy was not to mobilize the base, but to appeal to crossover voters. That irrepressible Clinton instinct to triangulate reared its ugly head one more time, and the result has been a world-historic catastrophe. Clinton's ads and messaging stressed the Trump's déclassé boorishness rather than a populist economic message that would have resonated with working class voters of all races. But the votes of Republican college-educated women they were chasing never materialized, while turnout and Clinton's vote shares among African-Americans, Latinos, millennials, and working class whites were significantly down from Obama's in 2012. In stroke of bitter poetic justice, the fruits of Clintons' own long-ago policies came back to haunt them. NAFTA and other Clinton "free" trade deals devastated the Rust Belt and created the ravaged communities and the despair that compelled many working class voters in those areas pull the lever for the despicable Trump.
A post-election report by the pollster Stanley Greenberg confirms that Clinton's decision to shun a progressive economic appeal was a fatal error. Greenberg found that "polls showed fairly resilient support with white working class women, until the Clinton campaign stopped talking about economic change." When the Greenberg team tested a Democratic message attacking Trump for his character vs. a message "demanding big economic changes" and attacking Trump for "supporting for trickle-down and protecting corporate special interests," they found that the economic message "performed dramatically better," particularly among key voter groups like millennials, white unmarried women and white working class women.
The election is over, and with it, so it is the Clinton's quarter-century long domination of Democratic politics. And so lately I've been thinking about the Clintons' historical legacy. It's not a pretty picture. The neoliberal economic policies of Bill Clinton, which Hillary strongly supported – free trade, deregulation, the obsession with deficit reduction – led to soaring levels of economic inequality, flat or declining wages for most Americans, and record low rates of labor participation. The Clinton crime bill ruined countless lives, especially black lives. Welfare "reform" immiserated poor families and led to a dramatic upswing in rates of extreme poverty. Under the watch of Presidents Clinton and Obama, the Democratic party at the state and local level was allowed to slowly die away. Today, the Democratic party as an institution is probably weaker than it's ever been at any time in its long history. The Democrats now control none of the three branches of government and only 18 governorships and 13 state legislatures. In the weeks leading up to the election, many political observers were confidently predicting an historic Trump defeat followed by a meltdown of the GOP. But – plot twist! – it's the Democratic party that has collapsed into a smoking heap of rubble.
Team Clinton repeatedly reassured us that Hillary was the most highly qualified and most hyper-competent person evah! to run for president. They possessed the unshakeable conviction that they, the best and the brightest, could not possibly fail – so much so that on election day, her aides prematurely uncorked the celebratory champagne. So extreme was their recklessness that they actually wanted to run against Trump. Out of the outrageous hubris, complacency, and incompetence of Hillary's presidential campaign came the Clintons' horrifying parting gift to America: President Donald Trump. This is where the Clintons led us. Trump's election, and the nightmare to which America is awakening, is on them. And it is unforgivable.
I suspect that history is not going to look kindly at Bill and Hillary Clinton. No, not very kindly at all.
I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don't depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We're supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise.
Our work isn't hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to In These Times.


text:
The story of mankind
is, in a sense, the story of two men and their families.
The first man, Adam,
is the forefather of us all. Each of us carries a copy of the gigabyte genetic
code programmed into Adam when God brought him into existence. All the variety
and diversity we see among the peoples of our planet have been passed down to
us from this one man. There is only one "human race."
It has been estimated
that the total number of Adam's offspring to date may be as high as 100 billion
persons. (1)
Adam/Eve (the first
man) was created along with the higher animals on the very-busy Day Six of
creation week:
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature
according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each
according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth
according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps
on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our
likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of
the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing
that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of
God He created him; male and female He created them.
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and
multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds
of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "See, I have given you
every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. "Also, to every
beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on
the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and
it was so.
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very
good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and
the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. (Genesis 1:24-2:1a)
further new creative work by God took place after sunset on that first Friday.
The creation was complete and the story of our race could now unfold.
from this passage is that man was placed on the earth, surrounded by a suitable
eco-system and all kinds of other living creatures. (The birds and fish had
been created on the previous day). Man was to have dominion, over our planet at
the very least. He was to be a wise and benevolent steward, a resources
manager, a caretaker. This
required Adam to be tremendously well-informed about everything. In the next
chapter of Genesis we see that Adam's first major assigned task was to study and
then name all the animals. To get
him started, God planted a cultivated, exotic garden as his home. From the
garden, Adam and his wife could explore the whole planet discovering, utilizing
and managing the vast resources there. The original earth outside the garden
was evidently unkempt, uncultivated and wild, hence the charge to Adam to
subdue it. (The Hebrew word kabash means to bring into subjection by force.)
Today, many erroneously assume that we know more than Adam did,
but the contrary is the case. Adam was taught by God, He lived nearly a
thousand years. Now we are lucky to live 70 or 80 years. Our copies of Adam's
genome are now full of errors and garbage. (2)
something terrible has happened to our race—we no longer appear to have
control over our planet, or our lives.
It would appear that we are systemically destroying the environment, and
ourselves. The story of mankind is one of deterioration and decay (ever
increasing entropy). We have gone downhill a vast distance from where our
father Adam lived before the Fall.
account in Genesis 1 clearly shows God's involvement in every detail of the
work of creation. When the work of creation was finished, God remained involved
in every detail of the daily management of the creation, working in partnership
with Adam.
Chapter Three of Genesis had been lost to us, and was not found in our Bibles,
we would be at a grave loss in understanding what has gone wrong with Adam's
turns out that God made man very much like Himself, and designed us for
relationships. Relationships are possible when there are two or more persons
free to choose to relate to one another. If relationships are about
love—and God is love--each
party must have capacity to refuse the offer of a relationship from
another. To be worthwhile, every
healthy relationship must have lots of give and take and be meaningful,
invigorating, creative and unique—not dull, boring, controlling or manipulative.
The ability to freely choose depends on the existence of more than one viable
option or choice in the world. In fact, to this day, we are all free to reject
God, or to give Him permission to be part of our lives. God has built that option to choose
into the core nature of man.
and Eve at first lived in close harmony with their Creator, (and of course with
each other), until a fallen angel seductively wedged himself in between Eve and
God (and then between Adam and God). The effect of this destructive influence
was that our first parents chose to act in independence of God. Their path was
the delusionary path of "self-realization." In effect, they chose to
act as their own gods.
result was that their relationships with God were severed. (The relationship
between Adam and Eve was severely damaged as well). The Bible calls the path of
living apart from God "the path which leads to destruction. A short verse which helped me as I was
coming to know the Lord 45 years ago is Romans 6:23, "The wages of sin is
death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord."
alone has life, and cut off from the Source of all life, and love, and truth
sets us on a path leading to emptiness, loss of purpose, loss of spiritual
power and truth—not extinction,
but a total shriveling up of what we ought to have been.
worse, this choice of our first parents to live in independence of the Creator
made it possible for a false god to take over and occupy the vacated throne
room of the human heart.
Usurper is that fallen angel Satan. He now occupies the throne within Adam's
children, the control room of the spirit, where God ought to be dwelling. The
devil or Satan, is described in the New Testament as "the prince of the
power of the air," and "the god of this world." In effect, Adam
abdicated the original dominion God gave him, and Satan moved in.
common question asked by many inquirers today is, "Why did God create a
world with so much evil, violence, suffering and death?" Or they make the
statement, "I can't believe that a loving God would allow all this
suffering and injustice." The Biblical answer is that the original
creation has been ruined and man has fallen from his original place of power
and dominion where they lived in fellowship with God. Had our first parents not
freely chosen to live apart from God, we could all still be living in Paradise.
The message of the Bible is about restored dominion for us.
even in man's estrangement from God, there is in each of us a striving to be
what God designed us to be. We still try to manage our lives, exploit the
resources of the planet, and struggle with our relationships with one another,
even though we constantly fail in all these areas. Estranged from God, we lack
the wisdom and the wisdom, to make good choices and to exercise authority
can see what has changed since the Fall in regards to man's loss of dominion by
looking at the oldest book in the Bible, the Book of Job. When the book opens,
Job is seen to be a wealthy, godly patriarch residing in the Middle East. A
series of horrific disasters befalls him. He is powerless to stop them. A long
struggle within Job unfolds in which God finally reveals why Job's trials were
permitted by a loving God.
The reader
of the Book of Job is allowed behind the scenes to see what Job does not know
about ensuing events which God is bringing to pass in his life.
In a
conference between God and the angels (who serve God in the overall government
of creation), Satan is seen to play a big role in bringing about Job's
sufferings. It is actually God who is moving Satan against Job for Job's
greater good, though this is not clear until the end of the book. Satan's
powers (when he given permission to exercise them) are violent and destructive.
However, what Satan does is always by God's permission and there are always
limitations placed upon him. If not he would destroy us all.
By the
way, at the beginning of the book of Job there are three main characters: God,
Satan, and Job. At the end of the book, only God and Job are to be seen.
Bible describes the present world system (kosmos)—the prevailing world-order--as a fallen
system built and managed by the fallen angel Satan. Should we suffer any
delusions about our present helpless, powerless condition as sinners, living in
a fallen world-order, under the dominion of this fallen angel, the Bible
vividly describes what happens when a son or daughter of fallen Adam chooses to
move over into the family of the Second Man, Jesus of Nazareth.
"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,
in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to
the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of
disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of
our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by
nature children of wrath, just as the others.
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with
which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together
with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made
us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to
come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us
in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not
of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God
prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:1-10)
much freedom do the natural-born sons and daughters of the first Adam now
possess? Not much! In our natural-born state we are all "dead in
sin," unresponsive towards God, and headed by our very nature towards even
further estrangement from God and real life. Millennia of research have not
altered the mortality rate of Adam's children. It remains a flat 100%. All
efforts to improve the core state of man, apart from God, continue to fail.
Here is where the Second Man
comes in to rescue us from ourselves. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews
takes note of the fact that we do not today see man exercising his role as
master steward of the creation (4):
For He [God] has not put the world to come [i.e. the age to come
which will follow the age we now live in], of which we speak, in subjection to
angels, [implying that the age we live in now is under angelic management].
But one testified in a certain place, saying: "What is man that
You are mindful of him, Or the son of man that You take care of him? You have
made him [man] a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory
and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands. You have put all things in
subjection under his [man's] feet." For in that He put all in subjection under
him, He left nothing that is not put under him.
But now we do not yet see all things put under him [man].
But [instead] we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the
angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by
the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting for Him,
for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to
glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For
both He who sanctifies [makes whole] and those who are being sanctified [us]
are all of one [new family], for which reason He is not ashamed to call them
brethren, saying: "I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the
assembly I will sing praise to You." And again: "I will put My trust in Him."
And again: "Here am I and the children whom God has given Me."
Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He
Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him
who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through
fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does
not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. [i.e.,
salvation is not offered to the angels].Therefore, in all things He had to be
made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in
things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For
in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are
tempted." (Hebrews 2:5-18) (5)
Here is wonderfully good
news! The Son of God became a man and entered our world to fix everything, and
to restore our lost humanity, and our lost dominion. The Apostle Paul contrasts
the two Adams in the Epistle to the Romans,
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world,
and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all
sinned--(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when
there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those
who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who
is a type of Him who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's
offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the
one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which
came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense
resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses
resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned
through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift
of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men,
resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free
gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's
disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will
be made righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But
where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death,
even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus
Christ our Lord." (Romans 5:12-21)
favorite passage of mine is found in Colossians. The writer sums up the role of
the Son of God in the creation, and in the coming grand restoration of all
things by Jesus:
He [Jesus] has delivered us from the power of darkness and
conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption
through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible
God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that
are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and
for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist (are held
together and sustained). And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the
beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the
preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should
dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on
earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet
now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you
holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—" (Colossians
similar scripture opens the letter to the Hebrews:
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time
past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His
Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the
worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His
person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by
Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained
a more excellent name than they."
about the present state-of-the world? The present world population is over 6.8
billion – and climbing. What fraction of mankind has accepted God's
gracious offer of a restored (brand-new) relationship with Him? Superficial profession
of faith doesn't count, what matters is a real spiritual inner connection in
each person—allowing the resurrection life of Jesus to permeate us and
prepare us for the age which is to come. Clearly the real followers of Jesus
around the world remain a minority.
as we see in the case of Job, God has never stopped ruling over the entire
creation and managing it in every detail. We are not helpless pawns in the
hands of the devil even in our rebellion, God is in sovereign control of
everything that happens.
angels may now be involved in the affairs of men but these angels are still the
agents of God and must do His bidding. God rules over the universe but at this
time He does not REIGN on earth. That situation is soon to change. The most oft-prayed prayer in
Christendom for the past 2000 years is about to be answered. (5, 6)
C.S. Lewis' science fiction Trilogy, earth is depicted as "the dark
planet" ruled over by a "bent angel." The place where evil is
ultimately dealt with, dethroned and eradicated, is on our planet not somewhere
else in outer space.
factor in God's current management of earth through angelic intermediaries is
"common grace." What
common grace means is that God floods our entire world moment by moment with
mercy and love and aid to everyone. God greatly restrains evil making daily
life for everyone viable. Even very evil dictators and criminals eat, sleep,
make love and live out their lives in relative comfort and ease—because
of common grace. (7)
is One Man who is now running the
whole show. One man, the head of a whole new race, is now exercising perfect
dominion over everything. Further, this man Christ Jesus is already sharing the
power of His dawning kingdom with those who are in His family.
teaching of the New Testament is that now, at this very moment, there is a Man
in heaven appearing in the presence of God for us. He is as certainly a man as
was Adam or Moses or Paul; he is a man glorified, but his glorification did not
de-humanize him. Today he is a real man, of the race of mankind, bearing our
lineaments and dimensions, a visible and audible man, whom any other man would
recognize instantly as one of us. But more than this, he is the heir of all
things, Lord of all lords, head of the church, firstborn of the new creation.
He is the way to God, the life of the believer, the hope of Israel, and the
high priest of every true worshiper. He holds the keys of death and hell, and
stands as advocate and surety for everyone who believes on him in truth.
Salvation comes not by accepting the finished work, or deciding for Christ; it
comes by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, the whole, living, victorious Lord
who, as God and man, fought our fight and won it, accepted our debt as his own
and paid it, took our sins and died under them, and rose again to set us free.
This is the true Christ; nothing less will do. (from the pen of A. W. Tozer)
majority of people in the world will continue to refuse the grace and mercy of
God to the very end. That is their choice. Our fall into self-centeredness was
deep and total, and many are not willing to be helped by God. No matter, God's
program is on track in the midst of the growing chaos of our age.
has been elevated to the highest throne of heaven. His work of fixing things
was, in effect finished at the Cross. We are all simply waiting for the Father
and the Spirit to bring all things under His full dominion.
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who,
being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but
made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in
the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself
and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the
name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of
God the Father."
(Philippians 2:5-11)
We who
follow Jesus as Lord are not only part of a whole new family, a whole new
creation, we are inseparably joined to Christ, and we are destined to share
that new creation with Him.
message to the world is a plea: give Jesus permission to bring you into His
family and to include you in His grand plans for an everlasting future. Jesus
has fully paid the entire price which makes are total restoration possible. He
does not desire our self-efforts and our self-energized good deeds. He wants to
reoccupy the throne of our hearts just as today He is seated on the High throne
of heaven. After that, when we freely choose Jesus Christ as Lord, He does the
"For Christ's love compels us, because we are
convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all,
that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died
for them and was raised again. So from now on we regard no-one from a worldly
point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the
new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ
and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world
to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has
committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's
ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on
Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin
for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2
Corinthians 5:14-21)
3. Ray Stedman's commentary
on Genesis One is most helpful,
"Notice also in this account that
man stands as the link between God and creation. He is a mediator. The Lord
Jesus Christ, when he appeared as the second Adam, the perfect man, is also
said to be a mediator, but between God and man. Here the man, Adam, is created
as the mediator between God and all animal life. He is made in the image of
God, which links him with God. In Psalm 8, David cries, "... thou
hast made him little less than God," (8:5a). That is an accurate
translation. The King James Version says, "a little lower than the
angels," but the word is literally Elohim, the same word that is used here in this passage for
God. Man is also said to be the governor of the created world, to have dominion
over the fish and birds, over the cattle, and even over the creeping things
upon the earth.
At this point we must deal briefly with
man's relationship to the animal world. Here we must part company entirely with
the theory of evolution. Mr. Darwin said that man is the end product of animal
life, that he is the highest of the animals, is linked to them and descended or
evolved through interminable ages, from animal life. The impression received
from his ideas is that man is not really very far removed from the animals,
that there are close links which tie man to the highest of the animal life,
especially the apes, who are most like us in the animal creation.
Ever since Darwin every monkey in the zoo
has been asking himself, "Am I my keeper's brother?" That accounts,
of course, for the discouraged look on their faces.
If you take a walk through a museum of
natural history you will see dioramas that picture the descent of man. In these
you will see ungainly creatures with huge slumping shoulders, a slouching gait,
protruding jaws and heavy eyebrows, who are said to be the links between the
apes and man. Anyone visiting such a museum is almost driven to the conclusion
that this is all very well substantiated, that science has established the fact
that man does come from the animal world.
But the actual truth is that there is no
evidence whatsoever that links man to the animals -- none whatsoever. Actually,
the gap between man and the highest of the apes (and scientists themselves
admit this) is at least as great as the gap between the ape and the amoebae.
There is no close connection whatsoever. Science is at a total loss to account
for the sudden appearance of true man, with his amazing faculties not found in
the animal creation. Through the decades since Darwin, scientists have been
looking for the links that would establish a connection, but these links do not
exist in fact -- only in imagination and plaster of Paris...
Jesus Christ was also an immortal being.
He did not need to die, and he did not die by any effort of man. He said,
"I have power to lay down my life and l have power to take it again,"
(John 10:17-18). He did not die because of the effects of crucifixion -- he
died because, on the cross, he dismissed his spirit by an executive act of his
own will. He laid down his life in that way.
The first Adam was also an immortal
being. His body did not need to die. But if his soul had been placed in a
mortal body, then the second Adam is not like us. According to the Scripture,
the second Adam came to become man as man was made in the beginning, entirely
like us. He became one with us. The writer of Hebrews says,
...he had to be made like his brethren
in every respect, (Hebrews 2:17a)
Thus the Bible denies that men evolved,
as some scientists would tell us, that he was created directly by the hand of
God. We will say more on this as we come to other studies, but I want to point
this out here: Man is now being redeemed by the grace of God, and to be
redeemed means that he has fallen from what he once was.
Redemption is a process of restoring him
to what he once was. We know from the Scriptures that when the redemptive act
of God is complete man will stand before God, body, soul, and spirit, all made
in the power of an endless life. Thus this record strongly suggests that the
body of Adam did not come from the animal world.
That brings me to the final point here in
Verse 26, which is the purpose for which man was made. He was given dominion
over all of the created universe. He was made to govern and to master the world
in which he was placed. Even though man has fallen he has never forgotten that
command, and this accounts for his unending persistence in trying to master the
forces of earth, to climb the highest mountain and explore the deepest sea and
to utilize the animal creation for his own purposes. But also, the effect of
the fall is seen in the amazing fact that the man who was placed in this world
to govern it is now on the verge of destroying everything.
If evolution be true, and man is, as the
evolutionists tell us, the highest achievement of evolution, then what kind of
progress is it where man, who represents the zenith of evolutionary
achievement, is found to be crueler than any animal could be and whose obdurate
madness is threatening to bring the whole thing down in total collapse,
destroying all animal life as well as himself? Yet, despite the fact that man
has lost his ability to master, the desire to do so still remains as a kind of
racial memory within us. And that desire in itself is a picture, on the
physical level, of what redeemed man is called to be on the spiritual level.
Here we come to the great purpose of this passage. It is not here to teach us
what our instincts already have informed us, that we are made to govern. It is
here to illustrate to us that when we become redeemed we are called to reign in
life, to master life... Born to Reign, by Ray C. Stedman.
Recommended: Tim
Keller, The Kingdom of God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, Dutton, 2008.
Don't miss Ben Stein's movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,
now showing nationwide..
April 27, 2008

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This Website is for use solely by individuals at least 18-years old (or the age of consent in the jurisdiction from which you are accessing the Website). The materials that are available on this Website include graphic visual depictions and descriptions of nudity and sexual activity and must not be accessed by anyone who is under 18-years old and the age of consent. Visiting this Website if you are under 18-years old and the age of consent might be prohibited by the law of your jurisdiction.
By clicking "I Agree" below, you state that the following statements are accurate:
This is a preview of Karups model Marilyn Sugar. You can watch her content online or download to your computer or mobile device once you become a member!


text:
Low-income drivers are routinely charged higher auto insurance premiums than well-heeled car owners. But why should the poor pay a premium when it comes to premiums? Is the system inherently unfair? Or are there valid reasons why poor drivers tend to represent bigger risks for insurers?
The Consumer Federation of America just released a study entitled "Lower-Income Households and the Auto Insurance Marketplace: Challenges and Opportunities." Insurers analyze many factors to assess what level of risk a driver poses, and therefore what kind of rate he or she must pay, but, the report notes:
No states … permit the use of race or income in rate-making.
Nonetheless, the net result of factoring in elements such as occupation, education, location of residence, and credit history is that the poor are largely deemed as higher risks, and low-income drivers are charged higher rates. The CFA report says that this state of affairs makes auto insurance unaffordable for many low-income households. The inability to afford a car also places them at a major disadvantage in terms of economic opportunity, restricting where they can work, shop, find daycare, and go to school.
(MORE: Obama Wants to Force Colleges to Reduce Tuition, But at What Cost?)
So the poor get screwed. Not much new there. But the CFA claims that the way insurance companies come up with rates isn't just unfortunate — it's unfair.
After examining tons of literature on auto insurance, the study's authors call attention to several factors that aren't taken into account by insurers, and that should, in theory, lower the risks for low-income drivers. For instance, poor drivers—because they're poor and don't have much money for gas and car upkeep—usually drive a lot less than their high-income counterparts. Households with incomes of around $40K and under drive about half the miles annually that the richest 20% drive. Less time on the road equals less chance of getting into an accident, hence less overall risk.
The CFA also makes the case that low-income drivers have far fewer options for insurance. Several insurers won't sell insurance to "certain types of car owners," the report states, and insurance agent offices are almost nonexistent in poor neighborhoods. As odd as it sounds, insurers in a few states have been known to charge cheaper premiums for standard liability coverage than they do for minimum liability—which is the option often deferred to by low-income drivers.
(MORE: Why Do Consumers Avoid One Car and Buy Another? Often, for No Good Reason at All)
The CFA argues that it is unfair to incorporate factors such as occupation, location of residence, and credit history into auto insurance rates because it has not been "adequately demonstrated to regulators that these correlations exist or that they adequately reflect risk."
In any event, exactly how much extra do low-income drivers pay for auto insurance? The CFA doesn't really offer a number. Even coming up with estimates for the average driver's annual premium is problematic, and the CFA cites figures such as $901 per car (2009 nationwide average), $1,379 per household (2007 numbers that also average in carless homes), and $1,724 to $1,970 (estimates just for households that actually own cars). The report does give examples, though, such as a single male in the Los Angeles area with a less-than-perfect driving record who could expect to pay annual premiums of $1,628 to $2,353 if he lived in the poor area of Compton, as opposed to $1,334 to $1,734 if he lived in well-to-do Sunnyside.
Presumably, crime rates—including auto theft—are higher in low-income neighborhoods, so it would seem like location of residence is a legitimate risk factor. Does that risk justify charging an extra $300 or $600 per year because of where someone lives? The CFA says no, and it's calling for all sorts of programs that'll help make insurance more affordable for the poor.
Brad Tuttle is a reporter at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @bradrtuttle. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.


text:
Library Website Onsite Services Library Hours Statistics
The University Library exists to advance the scholarly, research and creative endeavors of the University of Lethbridge. It offers instruction programs, services and information resources aimed at cultivating information literacy and independent learning.
The Library's website provides access to resources and services which are available both on and off campus. These include access to the Summon Discovery, databases, e-journals and e-books as well as other electronic resources, a virtual tour, how to guides and electronic reference service.
Instruction: Staff is available to assist Library users with class assignments and research questions as well as to offer instruction in the effective use of information resources and the tools available to locate them. Visit the Research Help Desk on level 10, use the Ask Us reference service available via the Library website or use our instant messaging reference service. Tours are available at the beginning of the fall and spring semesters.
Collections: The Library provides collections of educational materials in a variety of formats to support the University's academic and research programs. There are roughly 1.4 million physical items in the collection including books, journals, government publications, audiovisuals, maps, and microforms. In addition, the Library subscribes to a number of electronic resources in a variety of disciplines including indexes and databases, e-books, e-journals, and government documents.
Borrowing: Anyone with a validated UofL Campus Identification Card is entitled to borrow circulating materials from the Library. Those with a UofL library card in good standing may apply for a TAL (The Alberta Library) card which can be used to borrow books directly from participating libraries throughout Alberta. UofL alumni and community members may purchase a membership or use their TAL cards from their home libraries to borrow books.
Loan periods vary depending on the type of material and some items are non-circulating. Materials in heavy demand, such as required readings for courses, are placed on Reserve and are subject to shortened loan periods. For further information regarding borrowing privileges, you may visit the General Services Desk on level 10 or go to the Library homepage for more information.
Interlibrary Loans: The Library will try to obtain -- for faculty, students and staff -- those materials required for study and research that are not available at the University of Lethbridge Library. To request an Interlibrary Loan, go to the Library homepage for more information.
Media Services: A collection of equipment is available for use onsite as well as for loan. Those with a validated Library card can visit the General Services Desk on level 10 to book, borrow or obtain assistance in using available equipment. Some services are restricted to faculty, staff and students of the University. Visit our Media Services page.
Study Facilities: The Library provides a variety of study spaces including study tables, carrels and group study rooms. The study carrels are equipped with computers loaded with internet browsers, word processing and spreadsheet application software. Other carrels are equipped with listening and viewing equipment. Several carrels and the group study rooms provide connections for laptops and wireless network is available on all levels. A number of computers with specialized software and devices to assist students, faculty and staff with disabilities are also available. Photocopiers/printers are available on all three levels.
Faculty of Education Curriculum Laboratory: The Curriculum Laboratory, located on level 11, is a learning resource centre designed to support the Faculty of Education's teacher education program. Multi-format materials relevant to the Alberta school curriculum are available for preview and/or loan. Collections and facilities include group study spaces, Macintosh computers, a scanner and other preview and materials preparation equipment that are available to users when the Library is open. Circulating materials are signed out and returned at the Library's General Services Desk.
The Library's hours vary throughout the year.
Fall/Spring Semesters
September through December and January through April when classes are in session open hours are:
Summer Hours
From May through August when classes are in session open hours are:
During Intersession open hours are:
Library hours are subject to change so please check the Library's website for current hours.
Please see the University of Lethbridge Annual Facts from Institutional Analysis for more Library statistics.
Book a Research Appointment


text:
Panorama Club Classic benefits change
Dear Members,
Please, take into consideration the changes in the list of benefits and privileges provided to Panorama Club Classic Members on UIA own regular scheduled flights in accordance with p. 3.9. of the Panorama Club Terms and Conditions.
The following privileges of Panorama Club Classic Members are valid for flights until June 30, 2018 inclusive:
- 2 kg extra allowance for each piece of checked luggage, but not exceeding 32 kg (also applies to sports equipment).
- Extra hand luggage allowance – 1 piece of up to 12 kg (except on Embraer-145, where the hand luggage allowance is 1 piece of up to 5 kg/105 cm).
Starting from July 1, 2018 the above-mentioned privileges are no longer available.
The actual list of Panorama Club benefits and privileges is published by the link.


text:
Posted by Editoress on 01/21/11
The Canadian track team didn't wait long before showing they were ready at the UCI Track Cycling World Cup in Beijing, China, as the Canadian women's team pursuit squad won the silver medal on the opening day.
The Canadian team, comprised Tara Whitten of Edmonton, AB, Laura Brown of Vancouver, BC and Stephanie Roorda of Vancouver, BC, qualified with the second fastest time of 3:27.606 to advance to the gold medal to race against the powerful New Zealand team, which won the qualifier with a time of 3:26.477.
In the gold medal race, the Canadians were forced to concede the victory to the strong New Zealand team, posting a time of 3:27.238, a 2.176 seconds deficit against their opponents.
"This silver medal is a great accomplishment for us. The competition at the World Cup events is fierce this season with everyone trying to make Olympic qualifications," said Stephanie Roorda. "Our preparation at our LA base after the holidays was one of the most important parts in our success today. This is a great place to go from into our lead up to World Championships in March."
Laura Brown added "Our performance today felt really put together. Now that both Steph [Roorda] and I have moved to LA [where Tara was already located] our team has really dialled in the technical aspects of the team pursuit, as well as getting stronger and faster. The National Team being stationed in LA has been huge to my improvements and success thus far. I have access to a world class training facility, I train with my teammates every day, I am surrounded by other athletes who share a performance driven lifestyle, and I get access to our support team when they come down to LA."
With the silver medal, Canada jumps to third in the rankings in the overall World Cup standing with 23 points, only two points shy of Australia at 25 points. New Zealand, which has won two of the three World Cup events, sits alone atop the standings with 32 points.
"We are in the Olympic qualification period and everything is going as planned. This is the first medal of the 2010-2011 season - and it is surely a cherry on top of a good season so far, and I am so excited to use this momentum for our upcoming training and preparation for the World Championships at the end of March," continued Brown, who won her career third World Cup medal.
The performance is Canada's best ever in the discipline. Prior to this race, the team, led by Head Coach Richard Wooles, finished fourth and fifth in the opening two World Cup events of the 2010-2011 season.
In the men's Omnium, a multi-race event, Zach Bell of North Vancouver, BC, is currently sitting in second place of the overall UCI World Cup standings. Bell won the opening Flying Lap race, and went on to finish fourth in the Points race and sixth in the Elimination, to lead the standings after the first day of competition.
The Canadian men's Team Sprint squad took 11th place, with a time 45.679 seconds in the last lap. The team consists of Joseph Veloce of Fonthill, ON, Stéphane Cossette of Bromont, QC and Travis Smith of Calgary, AB.
The Canadian men's Team Pursuit squad, comprised of Cameron MacKinnon of Dieppe, NB, Jean-Michel Lachance of Québec, QC, Jacob Schwingboth of Surrey, BC and Rémi Pelletier-Roy of Longueuil, QC, finished 13th, stopping the clock at 4:18.464.
Report courtesy CCA
Return to Canadian Cyclist homepage | Back to Top |


text:
Enjoy Access to Atlanta
Easy access from I-75, near downtown Atlanta
Enjoy Southern hospitality at our Super 8 Stockbridge hotel. We are located just off I-75 at Exit 224, about a half-hour south of downtown Atlanta. With comfortable, convenient amenities, our hotel is the perfect choice for business and leisure travelers alike.


text:
I recently followed this blog to add a keyboard shortcut to lock the screen:
I assigned the commandL keyboard shortcut to this script. I recently discovered the built-in ctrlshifteject, which is better.
Now I'm trying to remove the commandL shortcut, but it has disappeared from my keyboard shortcuts preferences! The keybinding still works, but it's not listed in keyboard shortcuts, and I do not know how to remove it now.
Does anyone know how? Thanks!


text:
The aerial search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is being suspended, with underwater search efforts expanding, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said today.
The new search efforts of the ocean floor could take up to eight months to complete.
In a news conference today, Abbott said side-scan sonar equipment is needed to search a larger section of seabed. A Bluefin-21 underwater autonomous vehicle has been scanning the ocean in areas where signals, consistent with the pings from a plane's black boxes, were detected.
Search crews detected several "pings"
While the Bluefin-21 hasn't detected anything connected to the jetliner, authorities say it will continue to be deployed.
"We're still baffled and disappointed that we haven't been able to find wreckage based on those detections," Abbott said. "It's the best information that we've got. It may turn out to be a false lead but, nevertheless, it's the best lead we've got.
Australian officials will be contacting private companies to bring in additional sonar mapping equipment that can be towed behind boats to search the expanded area at an estimated cost of $60 million, Abbott said. It could take officials several weeks to organize contracts for the new equipment and the Bluefin will continue to scour the seabed in the meantime, Abbott said.
So far, each country involved in the search has been bearing its own costs. But Abbott said Australia would now seek contributions from other countries to help pay for the new equipment.
Retired Australian Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, who is coordinating the southern Indian Ocean search, also spoke at the news conference, saying "We haven't found anything anywhere that has any connection to Flight 370."
Numerous reports of floating objects, debris fields and oil slicks in the southern Indian Ocean have turned up fruitless.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: What Happens Now?
The flight went missing March 8 with 239 people aboard. Abbott said search crews remain committed on bringing closure to relatives of the passengers.
"We owe it to the families, we owe it to the world to get to the bottom of the mystery and we won't let them down," Abbott said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.


text:
Witch at Large: Ruminations from a Grey Perspective
Seeing Paganism in terms of being a movement, explorations of our history, societal context, comparisons to other religious movements, and general Pagan culture.
Claremont Pagan Studies Conference - III
Peter Dybing gave Sunday's keynote speech, "Stirring the Cauldron of Pagan Sensibilities." A worthy pursuit to my mind. In an animated talk, Peter emphasized that Paganism was not a monolithic institution. He also spoke of the need for boundaries, avoiding what he called "the 2 a.m. crisis." During feedback, I reminded folks that one of the required courses for degree-seeking students at Cherry Hill Seminary is Boundaries & Ethics. I took the proto-class from Cat Chapin-Bishop back around 2000 and found it one of the most valuable classes I've ever taken.
He itemized several issues and then compared the attitudes about them of older Pagans and to those of younger generations. He said that older Pagans generally held tightly to beliefs whereas younger ones welcomed debate. I think this is true of any social phenomenon when it achieves some years; however, I don't think it's universal. I count many Pagans, myself among them, as being open-minded, adaptable, and willing to engage on current issues, far from being hidebound.
It was helpful for me to hear, even though it's obvious, that we bring with us the cultural attitudes of our times. I know that the feminism that underlies my being, religious and otherwise, has informed my views and practices. I know that my experience pre-Second Wave Feminism is very unlike the experience of women who, for instance, grew up in a world where reproductive choice is a given. And that's just on one issue. I know that the zeitgeist of my formative years differs from the zeitgeist of subsequent generations. Sometimes hearing something stated clearly from another person gives the fact a more crystalline ring. Thank you, Peter.
There was a contention Peter made with which I disagree. He showed photos of about six prominent Pagans and said how important it was to respect them. (I think 'respect' was the verb he used.) In any case, the sentiment was that we should excuse bad behavior among Pagans who've had a strong positive impact for many seekers. (Peter, I welcome clarification of this if I've misunderstood.) Respect cannot be forced. There are some I simply cannot respect. That doesn't mean I'm gonna run out and trash them all over the place. I see no benefit to anyone. On the other hand, if a sincere question comes my way concerning some incident or behavior and I have personal experience of the party(ies) involved, then I can't in good conscience ignore what I consider damaging, or potentially damaging, conduct and turn my back to the querent. My answer may be oblique and avoid specifics, but it will not whitewash. That said, such problematic individuals are thankfully rare.
We live in a culture of celebrity. None of us, including Pagan leaders, is immune to its allure. So it's understandable (1) that people might have a tendency to hero-worship those they perceive as Pagan celebrities, and (2) that prominent Pagans might succumb to the glamor of being 'celebrated.'
Indeed, it behooves us to show our appreciation for the gifts of our more visible and activist Pagans, be they artists, musicians, writers, or whatever, and to treat them with respect. At the same time, I believe everyone is accountable to her or his community (whoever that may be and however that is defined). With leadership goes responsibility.
For all of my high-mindedness from up here on my horse, I cannot say what any individual has to learn from another. Teachers and teachings sometimes come in unlikely packages.
Remember, though, young and haler Pagans, to notice if some greying person near you might need a chair, would welcome a place at the front of a long food line, or could use a hand with that luggage.
* * * * *
The final session consisted of four presenters: Sam Webster on "Pagan Soteriology," TonyMierzwicki on "Pagan Warriors Past and Present," Amber Dineén Gray "On Racism, Misogyny, and Homophobia in Pagan Reconstructionist Communities," and Helen Hye-Sook Hwang on "Field Research of Collecting the Oral Stories of Gaeyang Halmi, the Sea Goddess of Korea, and Uncovering Her Magoist Implications."
Having a concern for the well-being of returning military veterans,1 I found Tony's presentation especially interesting. Again, my notes are fragmented, but I jotted down "betrayal of those in power," "guilt for surviving," and "alienation on return," all of which are common among the battle-worn. Tony claimed that the key to avoiding PTSD is to adhere to a strict moral code. He explained that it's the custom among warriors to say prayers in unison and to pour libations before entering battle.
Tony's sources reveal that there are approximately 20,000 Pagans in the U.S. Armed Forces. I know from reading and from hearing from service members that chaplains often lead prayers with those about to enter combat, and also that there is pressure put upon all military to accept some form of Christianity. Their mission is evangelic. The job of chaplains is to serve the spiritual needs of all their clients regardless of their religions. Unfortunately, that's more the stated expectation than the reality. The largest portion of military chaplains in today's forces are Southern Baptist who have a goal of bringing people to their way of thinking about Jesus Christ. (This latter imbalance I have learned from my interfaith involvement.) I don't think I need to say how dangerous it is to enter battle, and how critical it is to feel the bond with one's unit that means everyone has everyone else's back. Because of this imbalance, as a priestess, I'm open to opportunities to help military Pagans feel more supported.
Tony described two military traditions from the ancient world2 that seem more humane to me than what I know of more modern practices. He said that the defeated side in a battle was allowed to collect its dead, and that the shrines of the defeated side were not defaced or destroyed.
I'm grateful to Tony for giving me a better understanding of the religious dimension of ancient warrior culture.
Others have reported on Amber Dineén Gray's unsettling experiences with racism, misogyny and homophobia in a reconstructed tradition. I concur with them that she was brave to share her knowledge, and I hope we were able to reassure her that her experience is not typical of most Pagans. In a way, what Amber encountered relates to the Pagan fundamentalism of which Dr. Magliocco had spoken the previous day.
1. See "Beyond Memorial Day: Understanding the Hidden Wounds of War," an interfaith event in which Don Frew and I were the only Pagan participants.
2. I'm not sure exactly which ancient world, although I suspect Mediterranean, because Tony had way too many written words on Power Point slides for us to get all the juicy information offered. Several presenters in addition to Tony had to skip over interesting work due to time constraints on each presentation.
Please login first in order for you to submit comments


text:
Services on Demand
Related links
- Cited by Google
- Similars in Google
On-line version ISSN 2309-9585
Print version ISSN 0259-0190
Kronos vol.36 n.1 Cape Town Nov. 2010
'... speak that I may see thee': bushmen, bleek, language and race in South Africa1
Tony Voss
Research Associate, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
In historiography and folklore the Bushmen are South Africa's autochthonous founders, and the Bleek archive is a key document in the country's ongoing attempts to forge an identity. Representing Bushmen offers a critique of this enterprise, but the central argument of Shane Moran's book is that hierarchical ideas of language and its history have been central to the genesis of racial attitudes in South Africa. Bleek was a linguist before he was an ethnographer and Moran gives a careful account of Bleek's On the Origin of Language and of the global context of Bleek's scholarship. Invoking the broadest humane perspective, requiring the closest attention to textual detail and facing up to the evasions and disappointments of early twentieth-century South Africa, Moran's book concludes with a recognition that we have room for action and grounds for hope.
Representing Bushmen: South Africa and the Origin of Language. By ShaneMoran. Rochester: University of Rochester Press. 2009. 210 pp. ISBN 978-1-58046-294-5.
In the San Francisco Chronicle of 16 August 2009, Alan Snitow reviewed Heart of Dryness: How the Bushmen Can Help Us Endure the Coming Age of Permanent Drought by James G. Workman (San Francisco: Walker Books, 2009). Workman is a 'San Francisco ... journalist and water adviser to a number of international agencies and African governments' who has identified with 'the Kalahari Bushmen's often heroic resistance ... an implacable foe ... to the Botswana government's effort to drive them from their remaining homes and traditional ways' (7). Here the Western journalist and water adviser is aligned with the Bushmen against the African government of Botswana. Both the imagery and triangulation recall G.W. Stow's nineteenth-century account of the Bushmen's resistance to the intruding 'stronger'races. As Shane Moran demonstrates in Representing Bushmen, the Bushmen have long been important 'to the question of origins, culture and race' (2), to which one might add survival or continuance, and have haunted the European (Enlightenment, imperialist, colonialist, modernist, post-colonial) imaginary for centuries.
The Bushmen are our originary humans, taking us back as close as we can get to origins, and yet always 'tied to global forces' (5) and in southern Africa also implicated in local politics. In South Africa the San are invoked in the rehabilitation of the post-apartheid community: 'indigeneity is called upon to play its part in grounding the nation' (6). The South African national coat of arms carries a motto in /Xam, one of the !Wi group of Southern Bushman languages. Now thought to be extinct as a spoken language, /Xam survives only in colonial philological transcriptions, most notably those of W.H.I. Bleek, Lucy Lloyd and Dorothea Bleek. The situation is typical: the Bushmen's power lies partly in their extinction.
Bleek, Moran's 'universal philologist', arrived in South Africa with Bishop Colenso in 1855 to work on the Zulu language, but his interest soon shifted to the Bushman languages. His doctoral thesis (Bonn, 1851) had dealt with the noun classes of southern African languages, Coptic, Semitic and other languages with sexual genders, and formed the basis of On the Origin of Language as the FirstChapter in the History of the Development of Humanity, published in German in 1852 and in English translation in New York, with a new author's preface written in South Africa, in 1867. Bleek and his sister-in-law Lucy Lloyd conducted their interviews with Breakwater Bushmen between 1870 and 1875.
Bleek was widely published - politics, folklore, grammar - in South Africa, Europe and the USA and from the outset his work had global implications and an extensive readership. His immediate intellectual network linked him with Grimm, Humboldt, Haeckel, and further with Hegel, Marx, Engels and others. In 1870 Bleek was granted a pension from the Queen's Civil List, supplementing his stipend as librarian of the Grey Collection in Cape Town. The influence of Sir George Grey had been backed by Darwin, Lyell, Huxley and Bishop Gray among others. Since his death Bleek's work has been important, not without controversy, in both southern African and universal linguistics, invoked by politicians, historians and social scientists, and is at present deeply implicated in South Africa's attempts to come to terms with its past, manage its present and plan for its future. Shane Moran's argument is that the key to the understanding of the Bleek Archive lies in Über den Ursprung der Sprache.2
Representing Bushmen is less concerned with recuperation of the Bushmen ('the heroism of the unvanquished remnants') than with 'the negative structure of colonialism's power ... to problematize the nostalgia for lost origins and to reflect upon the post-apartheid sense of the present as a departure and a new beginning' (11). The question of the origin of language 'takes us to the heart of what we call humanism', since 'language provides the very definition of man', serving both to distinguish the human from the animal, and to construct a hierarchy of the human.The aesthetic capacity, imagination, metaphor and tropism are central to these articulations, and as Moran shows, literary studies play an important role in rethinking 'the narrative and poetic modes in which we imagine the relation between past, present and possible futures' (11). But 'the aesthetics pass through semiology and ethnology' (29) and the system in which the Bushmen figure 'despite all the intricate complexities is invariably related to the material advantage of a particular dominant group' (30). We can sustain neither a nostalgic Africanism for a 'precolonial essence' (12) nor a naive liberal faith that racism is a demented straying from basic Western principles.
Chapter 2 is devoted to the problematic of the colonial intellectual. Moran is thus not concerned simply to point to the contradictions and limitations of Bleek's method and vision, but to show 'how the colonial archive is assembled and read'and 'What has been suppressed in the appropriation of Bleek's researches' (12). The 'guiding thread is the link between the account of the origin of language and [European/white] ethnocentrism' (14). The process exposes 'a mobile hierarchy that articulates the refinements within a common humanity that will ultimately be deployed to determine the status of African thought-forms' (15). Languages are graded on how they conform to imperial models, on the basis of whether their grammars use sexed-based gender, on the relative simplicity of their pronunciation, on their cultivation of metaphor. This leads to a distinction between ancestor-worship and god-centred religions. Ultimately the primacy of writing is invoked to maintain European supremacy in the hierarchy of languages. Reading 'the texts of colonialism' involves interrogation of their origins, of the historical sense, of the genres of historiography, of narrative itself.
Bleek cannot be dismissed as a mere 'colonial collaborator' (26). The colonial situation itself forces or tempts both coloniser and colonised to involve 'the intellectual imagination with the question of origins' (26). Yet Moran characterises the Bleek family archive as melancholic in its attempts to preserve a disappearing language from the inroads of colonial writing, the very script which gives European languages primacy over the tongues of the colonised.
In Moran's argument Bleek's research offers a lesson 'about the nature of intellectual production'. Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of Representing Bushmen are devoted to a close reading of On the Origin of Language. In his philosophical opening Bleekrelates the more refined conception of human nature to 'a theistically conceived origin', which involves consciousness as both self-reflective and self-determining: 'knowledge of language and thought entails knowledge of God's nature' (39). The possible divine origin of human language may suggest that the human is 'the aim of the world's development', but it does not follow 'that such a being can grasp out of itself the final goal of all knowledge' (39). Still, to have language may be to know the limits of language. That God is ineffable is not in itself ineffable, and we cannot go back to a world without words. The anthropomorphic God is a creation of metaphor and those languages are superior which rely on the tropism of a nominal 'sex-based gender' distinction and give rise to theistic religion rather than ancestor-worship. Tropism is a distinguishing feature of civilised man: 'Animals stick at the level of particularity' (47).
The question of the origin of language is one issue which necessitates a distinction between human and animal intelligence. Language is one boundary between human and animal. Is it a permeable membrane? Are human and animal contiguous, almost merging points on a spectrum, or does the proximity mean an unbridgeable gap? On the Origin of Language sets first the distinction between human and animal, to establish 'the proper nature of man' (49), which raises further the hierarchy within humanity.
Language begins with intuition and advances to concept, establishing 'the privilege of analogy' and developing 'the power of abbreviation' (49). Bushman languages achieve the first, but their elaborate clicks deny them the second. Bleek recalls the Epicurean theory of human development through a natural phase and one based on active human reasoning. 'As for the various sounds of spoken language, it was nature that drove men to utter these, and practical convenience that gave a form to the names of objects.'3
The process itself gives rise to the animal-human distinction and the hierarchy of humanity. Our understanding of 'the rise of humanity' from animal existence relies on 'a comparison of the lowest conditions of humanity with those of the highest formation in the animal world' (50). For example, Bleek implies a proportional relationship between animal speechlessness and the Hottentot language, and between that language and its 'Indo-European relations'. The search is for the 'life-giving power of volition' which emerges in self-consciousness, distinct from the immediate sensuous life, and arising not simply from the instinctive affinity of solitary individuals but from the reciprocity and interaction of a speech community. As Lucretius asked, whence would 'one man derive the power in the first instance of seeing with his mind what he wanted to do'?4
Thus the linguistically grounded capacity for organisation into larger unities 'separates humanity from animality'. This is a move from 'expression to representation and intention to communicate' and there is a radical difference between interjection and speech, between 'emotional and propositional language'. Nonetheless, the evolution of the word from sound remains uncertain, a transition which Bleek does not account for. The philosophical and emotional result, which has deep implications for the universal philologist and his colonial archive, is 'the insecurity of possession'. The conventional nature of language, it seems, must eventually give rise to the Saussurean arbitrary.
Human language similarly moves away from indistinct heterogeneity toward consciousness of difference and conceptual precision. Humans become distinguished from animals by what is 'deposited within language' (63). Feeling may provoke us to act upon nature via the negation of feeling - work, while language moves from the articulation of feeling as the living process of the singular individual to the thinking consciousness that language makes possible. So there is a move from feeling (and work) to art. Writing becomes the summit of linguistic development in Bleek's scheme. Chapter 5 expounds the 'graphocracy' and 'ethnographism' of Bleek's scheme.
Chapter 6 moves from 'the infrastructure of Bleek's theory' to his complex complicity in 'the formation of South African racism' (80). Moran shows, for example, that Bleek's work only partly conforms to Martin Bernal's analysis of the nineteenth-century shift in Western philology from the Ancient to the Aryan, towards a model which privileges Europe; Greece over Egypt, for instance. Bleek challenges the Aryan model. Much depends in Bleek's argument here on the notion of 'sex-denoting languages', in which 'the substantives are divided into classes orso-called genders, which have a certain relationship to the natural gender differences' (90). Hottentot, together with Egyptian, other North African, Semitic and Indo-European languages, is of this group. The priority of Hottentot and Bushman, as close to the origin of language, must be acknowledged, yet their distance from the West must be maintained.
Bleek defends colonialism - 'any well-conducted colonisation by a civilised nation is a benefit for uncivilised tribes' (91) - and to that extent commits to the model of 'development', and the practices of labour and property to which it leads. While 'the emerging idea of race is a response to the contradictions of development' (131), Bleek's concepts are not thoroughly determined biologically, but the potency (both aggressive and defensive) of racist discourse, even when it is not explicit, lies in its latency; 'race' can shift among blood, language, social structure and culture, and, as current South African politics shows, can be invoked at any time.5 History can change the status of a people (tribe, nation): Bleek speculated that the Australian Aborigines had 'fallen' from a higher stage of civilisation, as Thomas Pringle had thought of the Bushmen. Progress may stumble over 'retrograde moments'.
Chapter 7 is concerned in some detail with Bleek's linguistic and anthropological study of Zulu. In the basis of Zulu community in 'genealogical blood-relationship' Bleek identified what he saw as a characteristic shortcoming of such African societies. Ancestor-worship can only balance hope and fear, and a nonsex-denoting language cannot generate the tropism necessary for a humane ethics. 'Lacking original personification, they [the Zulu] are denuded of mythology and bereft of theology, and ultimately the fully developed power of reason' (98). Bleek's almost visceral evocation of such a civilisation - patriarchal, polygamous, speaking a prefix-pronominal language, to which the head of the tribe stands as a rightful father - may bring to mind some aspects of the South Africa of Jacob Zuma.6 Although, in Bleek's argument, the Zulus live in and are imprisoned by 'a reality permeated with the supernatural' (100), they lack imagination. They have not been capable of the transcendence of feeling which takes the human being into self-consciousness.
In Chapter 8 ('Bushman Literature') Moran addresses the attempt to utilise the Bleek and Lloyd Bushman research to promote 'a humanist alternative to South Africa's racialized past' (115).7 Bleek argued that 'both Bushmen and Australians ... are nearer akin to ourselves in their language and intellectual life than other races who far exceed them in point of civilization, e.g. the Negroes of Africa'. Yet in identifying with the Bushmen as artists Bleek had to gloss over the fact that their languages are genderless, so that 'animating the inanimate with human qualities' and the tropism, mythology and poetry that follow are not 'the structural peculiarity of the sex-denoting languages after all' (124).
Still, identification with the Bushmen has a long history and has been exploited in opposing ways. G.W. Stow made an epic story of the Bushmen's resistance to the 'stronger races' (the Nguni) and implied a sympathy between San and settler as artists, whereas Alex La Guma and Mongane Wally Serote identified the Struggle with the Bushmen as 'the first to fight'.8 In and since the work of Bleek, Bushmen continue to be distinguished as a 'nation',9 from, for example, the Hottentots, and representation of the Bushmen relies on a literary historical project to which 'the tropism of personification, anthropomorphism, metaphor, and the category of mythology' are central, as they were to Bleek's 'discriminations'. We cannot unambiguously use the Bushmen to counter 'cultural racism'. In due course no doubt, 'the textual remains [will] become tributary to another mythology sewn together from the remnants of colonialism' (127).
In his closing chapter ('Conclusion: Presentiment') Shane Moran argues that while other 'representations of the primitive' could stand in for the Bushmen, Africa (perhaps particularly South Africa in its recent history) has 'a singular signature within the concert of globalizing colonialisms' (130). To understand the contradictions of both Bleek's theory and the ambivalent complicity of our own time, 'when the language of racial essentialism is in the process of being reinvented' (132), we need to explore the 'narcissistic economy' (133) which mines the Bleek archive, 'an apologetics of white researchers' (137), a rite of pathos and piety, 'loss and reconciliation ... contact and recognition' (Carli Coetzee cited 134). We simultaneously identify with and mourn the Bushmen: 'the first people [are] grasped as the last people'. But we cannot stand outside our own history: 'Inadvertently force is transformed into right ... unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just' (135). For Moran the challenge is to 'interrogate rather than affirm the appeal of the colonial intellectual' (138) and to recognise that the restoration of balance between the settlers (black and white) is left undisturbed by the idealisation of the autochthonous South Africans and their identification with the /Xam, as in the national motto. The 'singular signature' of South Africa is readable not in its search to revitalise a lost community, but to bring 'erstwhile colonisers and colonised into a single political community for the first time ever in history' (Mahmood Mamdani quoted, 139).
Have we heard 'Racism's Last Word'? Is racism a betrayal or a fulfilment of capitalism? In South Africa, 'Poverty has worsened since 1994' (7) and 'class divisions have intensified, but not always along racial lines' (146). In this context, Shane Moran's 'Presentiment' arises from a meditation on //Kabbo's feeling 'that ... his body is tapping inside'. In the idea that 'The Bushmen's letters are in their bodies' (140-1, my emphasis), did the translator incorporate /Xam beliefs into his Western schema? 'Thinking about metaphor' by 'thinking through metaphor', Moran recalls the Socratic analogy of the wax tablet of memory and concludes that 'the Bleek and Lloyd translations of Specimens of Bushmen Folklore echo the first major Western treatment of memory and perception ...' (143) It is at this level of humanity that Shane Moran is asking us to think. Our recognition of our own complicities 'should not be taken to mean that wonder is cancelled, or that there are no options left' (144).
Representing Bushmen is a very impressive book: carefully argued, rhetorically impressive, wide-ranging in its reading and sense of context, written with commitment and conviction, candid about the complexity of its subject, often moving, timely, and elegant in its eloquence. Shane Moran's is an academic monograph that can go to work in the world. It should be recommended to students as an educative example of the processes of academic study in its combination of historical sensibility, scholarship and close reading.10
Tony Voss retired from the Department of English at the University of KwaZulu- Natal (Durban) in 1995. He is now a Research Associate of that university and of Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. His interests are in South African literature and history, Shakespeare, and the eighteenth century.
1 The quotation is from Ben Jonson. I have omitted the gendered opening words: 'Language most shows a man ...'
2 W.H.I. Bleek, Über den Ursprung der Sprache (Weimar: Herman Boehlau, 1868). [ Links ]
3 Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe (1951) tr. Ronald Latham, Harmondsworth: Penguin 1966, V, 1028-1030: 202. [ Links ]
4 Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 203. [ Links ]
5 Salim Mukkavil argues that 'racism persists in the Obama era, the supposedly post-racial world', and, quoting Henry Giraux, reports that the new racism implies 'that individuals should be judged by the content of their "character" and not by the colour of their skin'. Mukkavil observed 'a new tactic of the right to broadly accuse those struggling against racial bias as racist' and his account of the USA's 'cultural reservoir of racial biases' and 'race-specific, compensatory policies' may have some South African resonance (S. Mukkavil, 'The Paradox of a Black President', The Week-Ender: Weekend Review, Johannesburg, 24-5.10.2009, 1-2). [ Links ]
6 '...do we endorse our president's polygamy because we take the Zulu tradition as a guideline to law or because our laws encourage the freedom to choose the values of our tradition? There is a difference between honouring tradition and cultural chauvinism, and liberation from anyone's history need not be equivalent to denying it.' (S. Shear, 'Lost and found in translation', The Times, Johannesburg, 13.10.2009: 17) [ Links ]
7 The bibliography of Representing Bushmen includes 50 books and articles (from archaeology to poetry) by 36 writers (mostly South African) on Bushman themes, all published since 1989. To these one could add Workman's Heart of Dryness and the translations of Diä!kwain by Harold Farmer, the ex-Zimbabwean California poet. (His version of "The Broken String" is in Poetry magazine, April 2009.)
8 The 'Groot Ode' of N.P. van Wyk Louw, who asked why a Bushman should know more about South Africa than a modern Afrikaner, was inspired by a visit to the Altamira caves in Spain.
9 But 'Including, as they did, the descendants of slaves and so-called "mixed" marriages and unions, the lines of descent became so tangled that even the possibility of a /Xam inheritance was lost' (Pippa Skotnes quoted in note 42, 185).
10 I remarked some proofreading lapses but generally the production qualities are good. The binding of my review copy is coming apart: but that may be because of the time I have spent reading.


text:
So, I've been hearing a clicking sound coming from my macbook for about a week now. The last few days the system has just been locking itself up when I try to type anything.
Now, at startup I see this:
I'm assuming that the clicking was "the click of death" and my hard drive is fried. Or am I wrong?


text:
All Saints' Day is one of those ecumenically happy events. While some Protestants object to the Catholic practice of declaring specific individuals saints in a way different from other people, most don't have a problem with celebrating the reality that is depicted in John's glimpse of heaven in the Book of Revelation—martyrs and virgins and great multitudes from all nations praising the Lamb who was slain. Even the Protestants who reject All Saints' entirely and opt for "Reformation Day" generally tend to celebrate a particular band of "saints" like Martin Luther and John Calvin who, they say, returned Christianity to its pristine state.
All Souls' Day, on the other hand, takes part in the paradoxical nature of Catholic teaching on the reality of death.
This paradoxical nature, Catholics claim, comes directly from the very foundations of Christianity. Jesus of Nazareth, building upon the preaching of the Hebrew prophecies, proclaims to his audience that the Kingdom of God is both here and now and…is coming soon. His resurrection from the dead is the definitive sign that for human beings, death is no longer the last word. Various cultures and religions have claimed that the soul survives death, but the Christian claim is startlingly new. It's not just that you will exist as a lonely soul floating around in a dark, dank land of the dead, as so many of the ancient civilizations believed. It's that you will be given a new and imperishable body. Your dead body, says St. Paul, echoing Jesus himself, is like a kernel of wheat "buried" in the ground. The transformation that takes place from seed to plant is like that from an earthly body to a heavenly resurrected body. In view of this reality, St. Paul writes to the infant Church gathered at the Greek city of Corinth, quoting the Hebrew Prophets Isaiah and Hosea: "'Death is swallowed up in victory.' 'O death, where is they victory? O death where is thy sting?'"(1 Corinthians 15:54-5).
And even before that marvelous day of the final Resurrection, it is still true, says St. Paul, that to be "away from the body" is to be "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8)—and is thus a good thing. Thus, one side of the argument, and a strong one at that, echoing down through the centuries, is that death is indeed a good thing, something to be celebrated and not grieved. The Mass is itself a memorial not just of Christ's death but also his resurrection. "We are a resurrection people," said St. Augustine (354-430) in one of his homilies. The significance of death is that one has entered into the presence of God and is now preparing for the resurrection.
From this side of the picture grief could be seen as something somewhat suspicious, a sign that perhaps one loved the present life more than the heavenly one to come, or perhaps that one loved the deceased more than God himself. Better to take the attitude of the 13th-century saint Francis of Assisi and refer fondly to "Sister Death." Yet there was always another side.
St. Paul's words about death swallowed up in victory were themselves in the context of his own preaching about the completion of the Kingdom of God which Jesus said was both here and coming. "The last enemy to be destroyed," St. Paul writes, "is death" (1 Corinthians 15: 26). Death is to be destroyed, but unfortunately it isn't dead yet. And as it isn't swallowed up in victory yet, it is still particularly difficult to swallow. If Catholics profess to experience the reality of Jesus' resurrection here in this life, we also experience the reality of his death in the deaths of our loved ones. So grief has a place. Even if those loved ones "have gone to a better place," we who are left have not. And our love for them must enter into the same mysterious sphere as faith—something that we do without the comfort of sight. Grief is not a sign of superficiality or weakness of faith. Instead, we mourn in faith because we recognize that the loss is real and deep.
This was no simple theoretical matter, either. Medieval people were especially attached to the necessity of the imitation of Christ the Lord. Upon finding his friend Lazarus dead, St. John's Gospel tells us, "He wept" (John 15:35). He wept despite the fact that he preached the final resurrection of the dead. He wept despite the fact that he knew he would raise Lazarus from the dead that day if only to temporarily extend his earthly life. If Jesus the Lord of Life could grieve, his followers reasoned, then so could they.
Yet if grief was a legitimate reaction to death, it had to be a particular kind of grief. Writing of the resurrection in another place, St. Paul writes that this reality should affect our reactions to our beloved dead, "that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope" (2 Thessalonians 4:13). Catholic grief must be shot through with hope of the resurrection of our beloved.
Of course everything I've said thus far could probably describe most Christians and their attitudes. But what I learned when my mother died of cancer only a few short years after I had become a Catholic was that there were several elements of the Catholic approach to grief that were particularly helpful. These made my experience of grieving my mother slightly different from the grief I endured when losing my two grandmothers and a beloved aunt in the few years before Mom died.
On All Souls' Day, however, this paradoxical attitude to death is lit up by the specifically Catholic teachings on purgatory and the continuing connection of the dead to the living. All Souls', after all, isn't merely about grieving over death or celebrating it. It is primarily about helping the dead reach the fullness of union with Christ. If death is a good thing for the faithful Christian ultimately, it is, Catholic teaching asserts, not necessarily instantly a case of heaven. My discovery when I became a Catholic was that it was these aspects of Catholic teaching, rejected by the Reformers, that not only seemed true but were comforting in the deepest sense. And I discovered it when my mother died.
My Protestant friends complain that purgatory denigrates the work of Christ in saving us, making salvation something Christ doesn't really accomplish, but simply makes possible. This theological error, they say, results in a psychological block to our grief: we can't say that our loved ones' suffering is over and thus we cannot really grieve properly since they aren't really in a better place. But my friends mistake the theological nature of purgatory. It is simply the continuing work of Christ in sanctifying (making holy) people whom he has saved, not those people making up for Christ's shoddy work. My friends also mistake what it means for grieving loved ones.
What Catholic teaching about purgatory gives the mourner is something to say and something to do. No one ever knows quite what to say to mourners. "She's in a better place" can seem hollow, as C.S. Lewis commented in his marvelous A Grief Observed. "I'm sorry" is always good. But what a number of my non-Catholic relatives and friends observed to me was that they appreciated how my Catholic friends could say, "I'm sorry" but also, "I'll be praying for her" or, "I've had a Mass said for her" or, "We'll pray the Rosary for you." It is, my relatives said, a wonderful testimony to the Catholic belief that our beloved dead are beyond our sight, but not beyond our reach. Purgatory means for grief that when we believe in hope that our loved ones have joined Christ we are also capable, in our union with Christ in prayer, of still helping them along as they are made finally and fully their truest and best selves in Christ.
It's not just a one-way street. What many friends often say and half-believe—that our loved ones still "look down" and "take care of us"—is something that Catholics believe is literally true. Saints (those who've made it all the way into heaven) and those still being cleansed in purgatory do not pray for themselves: they pray for us. What details they know of our lives is a mystery nobody can know, but the fact that they still look down on us and pray for us is a comfort. This strong belief and the help it gave to me was another thing friends and relatives commented on.
Finally, the beliefs about the two-way connection between us and our beloved dead meant something for me as I dealt with my own grief. They helped me realize the truth that mourning and grief do not end with the funeral. And the practices associated with those beliefs both reinforced this truth and provided a means for living out those beliefs. Early Christians celebrated the funeral Mass as a memorial and a plea to God to fulfill his promises and "complete the good work that he began" generally on the third day after death. This was symbolic of the identification of the Christian with Christ who was raised on the third day. But this tradition was complemented in various other Churches by Memorial Masses variously on the seventh, ninth, 30th, and 40th days after death, as well as on the anniversaries of death. In the Church universal there grew up the custom of remembering all of the dead. In the Eastern Churches, a number of days throughout the year were designated for prayer for all the faithful. They were generally on Saturdays, since it was on that day that Christ's own body rested in the tomb. In the West the various customary days eventually settled on November 2, the day after the commemoration of All Saints, the commemoration of all those who are in heaven.
William Faulkner observed, "The past is never dead. It's not even past." This is the Catholic view of the dead as well. They're not just in the past; they live in Christ's presence no matter whether they are fully there or are being cleansed of anything unholy. All Souls' Day is the big reminder of this. My kids, even the ones who didn't know her, still have my mother as part of daily life. We remember her death every July 25, but also daily at mealtimes when we add to our blessing, "God bless Grandma Deavel…and may the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace." And we remember her today, along with all of the souls of our faithful departed, even those whose faith, as one of the prayers of the Eucharist has it, "is known to You alone." They still love us, we still love them. As Catholics we know we don't have to "get over" our grief for our loved ones. We can allow it to grow further and further in the hope of Christ's promises until it blossoms fully into love.
(This essay originally appeared on the CWR site on November 2, 2012.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.